Greta Thunberg's Rain Frog

I do think it’s funny that there are two species named after Donald Trump (a moth and a caecilian) and both were named to make fun of him rather then to honor him. It also makes those species much more memorable than just another obscure moth or caecilian.

3 Likes

I dislike having any species named after a person especially if they haven’t discovered itself (exceptions exist, some examples are the “napoleon spider” due to the silhouette and the genus “Obama” which is creative wordplay)

In short, it’s slightly frustrating and makes me feel eh, because if I named a species, for example it has white eyes, it would be “herobrine” or some other memorable references to the animal’s shape and not after someone who had nothing to do with her

2 Likes

albeit the subject of a lot more pressure than a woman her age should really be under.

Young people don’t exactly have a choice in responding to the pressures of climate change. It’s an enormously heavy subject but age or maturity isn’t your ticket into the conversation

3 Likes

I meant the immense media pressure and her being put up as a sort of idol. She’s a hardworking, intelligent, and passionate woman, but being in constant spotlight like she is is not great for anyone, much less a young woman. She certainly old enough to choose to continue (or not) but I do worry.
I’m not that much older than she and I hardy shrink from the spotlight but there’s a difference between getting attention and getting the rabid, stalkerey attention of modern megafame.

I am absolutely, completely, and passionately committed to fighting climate change, including holding older generations accountable and fighting big businesses and greedy politicians.

We need role models, but remember everyone is no more and no less than one human being.
Except, perhaps, those who have so much money and power they collapse into a black hole of greed and selfishness. Not so sure about those ones.

5 Likes

Fair point. There have been a number of discussions on this forum re: how species not seen as cute or “charismatic” don’t get a lot of attention or aid, and how naming is potentially one way around that.

Though I do also see with many of the other users’ points re: some of the problems/inequities with naming in general, especially when it is determined by who can pay the most.

yeah, like others i am not a fan of naming an entire species after a single individual, though one being named after Greta (or for that matter Lady Gaga) doesn’t bother me as much as taxonomists just exchanging naming species after each other.

3 Likes

There’s aslo the pressure from the way some use her as a …I’m not sure what word fits here…punching bag? scapegoat? boogeyman?

So not being held up to scrutiny as an idol, but as a target.

Though apparently, she has done an good job of not letting it get to her.

3 Likes

Yeah, but those are just common names. Anyone can make up those. It doesn’t have to be the person describing the species for the first time.

1 Like

There are several other threads debating whether or not just anyone can make a common name.

The caecilian name has yet to be formally published, but Trump also has a fossil sea urchin named after him, in what appears to be a genuine “honorary” (not joking or ironic) epithet.

2 Likes

I happen to work with the conservation group in Panama involved with the discovery and description of this species, so I find myself somewhat obligated to comment on this discussion - at least on some aspects. I’ll say upfront that I don’t have much to say that hasn’t been said already regarding naming species after people (and, frankly, I don’t have much of an opinion either way).

Regarding auctioning the naming rights, however, I want to clarify the purpose (at least in our situation). The location where this frog was discovered - along with dozens more new species, most still awaiting formal description - is part of a private nature reserve and highly threatened, mainly via deforestation for agriculture. We’ve discovered that while people and organizations are highly motivated to provide funding to grow the reserve by purchasing and “protecting” new land, funding to actually maintain the reserve is extremely hard to come by. Even gathering the funds to pay the minimum number of rangers is tough - thus my earlier use of quotes with the term “protecting”; without active enforcement no amount of land purchased for conservation in the area will ever be effective.

In addition, as some have already stated in this thread, species description is hard work and requires its own funding as well. The sixteen species formally described from the reserve thus far have required an average of around $10,000 each between collecting specimens, international travel to access museum collections, permits, molecular studies, and publication costs. Where possible we also try to direct funding towards scholarships to support domestic biologists and biology students.

I won’t pretend that there aren’t potential dangers with auctioning off naming rights, as many have already rightfully brought up, but I do feel that it can be too easy to simplify the situation here. There are a lot of moving parts and obstacles to conservation and sometimes the obvious result of an action isn’t its intended (or even total) purpose.

17 Likes

Thanks for your input. I look forward to a day when the sciences are generously funded and such measures aren’t necessary. I can wish.

6 Likes

Nice thought but I bet you will be disappointed by that unfortunately… The whole funding situation and everything it entails (from uncertainties, injustices to ineaqualities) put finally the nail in the coffin of my scientific carreer as I was apparently not tough enough to handle it… and I met lots and lots of collegues along the way with the same problem. So I am in awe of everyone being able to stay in the game and getting creative with it.

2 Likes

I have very mixed feelings about this matter…

1 Like

…and even less an autistic one! I don’t think I could do it!

Maybe the next auction winner will propose something like:
robertii’); DROP TABLE Species; –

4 Likes

We csll him Little Bobby Tables. :grin:

3 Likes

Yeahhhh like holy crap she must be in overwhelm literally always. People blame her for like everything too

4 Likes

Is the frog’s mating call a loud and annoying “How dare you?!”

1 Like

? Is that hoping to be LOL?

3 Likes

On iNat’s system, you are correct. Site curators came to the consensus that not just anyone can make up a common name…on iNat. However, anyone who wants to can publish an article using another common name and use this as justification for including it in iNat’s system, which allows for multiple common names since there are of course many, even within one language. They usually vary regionally. Most academic fields do not have much consideration for common names, so don’t really have any vested interest in paying attention to what’s being used in ANY media forms. So, while no one can just “make up a common name on iNat,” in the real world, almost anyone actually can, and these can be easily ported into iNat.

What I really like about iNat is that users seem to delight in preventing crossover in the default common name for similar species. I think that’s a great idea and going pretty well, but I’m sure it’s tricky when the MOST common name for multiple common species are in fact generally the same. This is why most users perusing data don’t really pay much mind to the common names unless we want to look at a list of them for an outreach event or something, in which case it’s actually helpful to have multiple common names listed in the system.

1 Like